Can we get flexible static wicks for our Mooneys?

[JohnB]

Having replaced several of my static wicks, I'm wondering if there's another option, as ours tend to break when anything barely touches them (I bet a bird could land on one just right and break it).  A line crew, airplane detailers and I have broken a few just by barely brushing against one at $40-$50 a piece, is there any way we can replace our static wicks with a more flexible one? I wouldn't mind paying extra for one that's not going to break so easily if it requires getting an update on an STC.

I have been looking at the wicks on King Airs, Cessnas and every other airplane I've examined all have flexible static wicks that simply bend when you touch them, where ours just break. Is there enough interest here to write to the company to see if they can come up with a flexible static wick option? Or do our modern Mooneys need the inflexible, porcelain like wicks for some reason different from other planes?

Edited June 25, 2017 by JohnB

[bradp]

I was just on a line with 20 odd Mooney's of various vintages and it didn't occur to me to look.  How in the world are they attached to the trailing edges? Riveted on? Screw holes? 

Mine didn't come with wicks but I've often thought I'd benefit from them.  Has anyone installed/ retrofitted these wicks?  Are they just standard parts so you could get flexible ones like John is asking about?

[M20S Driver]

They are riveted on my 99 Eagle.  

I bought a couple of new one from Mooney and they were longer and more flexible.  They were considered a replacement for my old ones. 

The riveted base stays and the new ones are screwed in the place of the old one.

[carusoam]

The threaded holder is riveted in place...

These devices have very little effect under normal operations...

They probably become incredibly effective when flying in snow or anything that rubs the surface of the airplane... anything that scrapes electrons from the surface will generate static electricity.

Pp thoughts only.

Best regards,

-a-

[JohnB]

12 minutes ago, M20S Driver said:

They are riveted on my 99 Eagle.  

I bought a couple of new one from Mooney and they were longer and more flexible.  They were considered a replacement for my old ones. 

The riveted base stays and the new ones are screwed in the place of the old one.

I would be interested in your order details Driver! The last ones i bought were the original ones which start off a bit flexible when they're new, but after a few months, they become brittle as porcelain, whereas Cessnas, you can bend them 180 degrees. I was actually thinking of replacing mine with a similar other airplanes flexible one, but would probably need an adapter to fit into the rivet which would probably change the electric discharge potential.

[JohnB]

Here's our wicks on the bottom pic compared to the ones of everyone else. I took a picture of the two on the outboard edge of the king air which have obviously been run into several times by whatever but they just bend when run into where ours just break.

Edited June 26, 2017 by JohnB

[M20S Driver]

The one that I got from Mooney look like the ones on the King Air.  I could not find the paper work in my files.

I will post a pic next time I go to the airport.

[StevenL757]

21 hours ago, JohnB said:

Having replaced several of my static wicks, I'm wondering if there's another option, as ours tend to break when anything barely touches them (I bet a bird could land on one just right and break it).  A line crew, airplane detailers and I have broken a few just by barely brushing against one at $40-$50 a piece, is there any way we can replace our static wicks with a more flexible one? I wouldn't mind paying extra for one that's not going to break so easily if it requires getting an update on an STC.

I have been looking at the wicks on King Airs, Cessnas and every other airplane I've examined all have flexible static wicks that simply bend when you touch them, where ours just break. Is there enough interest here to write to the company to see if they can come up with a flexible static wick option? Or do our modern Mooneys need the inflexible, porcelain like wicks for some reason different from other planes?

John, the 10-900-60-1 wick I sent you is the best (and only) option available for the Ovation, Bravo/TLS, Eagle, and Acclaim platforms.  They do have some good flexibility to them, so I'm a bit surprised at the ease which you mention these have broken.  Although line crews should be paying more attention to these and using a bit more care when moving around them, I personally have never had one break due to a "slight" bump or nudge to them...and I've brushed against mine more than a few times and have been surprised they haven't broken, given the force I've seen to have hit them with.

Aviall sells these brand new for ~$54, so anyone with an account there should be able to order them easily.

Steve

[LANCECASPER]

The M20M & M20R parts manual shows an alternate part number for the replaceable screw-in part to be a DD-1W made by TCO. 

Here's one on Ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/DD1W-Static-Wick-/132201852553

I wouldn't lose any sleep over buying the non-certified version (same part number $22.47) : http://www.skygeek.com/tco-dd1w-static-wick.html

(I bought one of these in November 2014 from SkyGeek for an Ovation I had. If I remember correctly the DD-1W are more flexible. On the first Bravo I owned it seemed like there was always one broken (10-900-59/1))

[MB65E]

The ones on the late model Cessna T182t's is below if it helps. They ar not cheap, but flexable. $65 from spruce. 

They ship with the receiver, threaded male end with a lock washer. G1000 installation, and I would have no issue with them on any Mooney. 

CESSNA WICK C592001-0203 -matt

[JohnB]

Wow thanks all! This is why we Mooniacs are the best! Hugely helpful guys! I was reacting since i had to replace two in two months, but the first one, got taken out by lightning in a cloud (it did it's duty) and the one this week was from me trying to fit a cover over  my vertical stabilizer. I think I have it down now. The wicks we have 10-900-59/1 (long one) and 10-900-60/1 (short one thanks Steve) are the ones we use. And they eventually get very brittle and stiff. (The one i broke this week was on the top of my vertical stabilizer, so that one may have been never before replaced over 20 years old).

Spoke to my mechanic and he said yes most other airplane companies have gone to the more flexible wicks, BUT he thinks the ones we use (10-900-60&59) are more effective in dissipating electricity than the flexible ones using my recently electric fried wick as an example. So I might just stick with the original ones and replace them when they do get too brittle and break with a touch. Again.. hugely helpful! Thanks!

 

John

[JohnB]

8 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

The M20M & M20R parts manual shows an alternate part number for the replaceable screw-in part to be a DD-1W made by TCO. 

Here's one on Ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/DD1W-Static-Wick-/132201852553

I wouldn't lose any sleep over buying the non-certified version (same part number $22.47) : http://www.skygeek.com/tco-dd1w-static-wick.html

(I bought one of these in November 2014 from SkyGeek for an Ovation I had. If I remember correctly the DD-1W are more flexible. On the first Bravo I owned it seemed like there was always one broken (10-900-59/1))

Ordered some spares! Thanks!!!

[kortopates]

Personally, I think the need for static wicks died with the ADF and Loran longer wave frequency's. I'd be curious if anyone has actually ever found they really needed them. I doubt it with higher frequency's we use today. Certainly not going to affect GPS. The government does it all on its own with its testing.

On the other hand, since removing them leaves holes and if the original balancing of control weights included them (I doubt it) removing them now could put balancing at risk. 

[Marauder]

8 hours ago, kortopates said:

Personally, I think the need for static wicks died with the ADF and Loran longer wave frequency's. I'd be curious if anyone has actually ever found they really needed them. I doubt it with higher frequency's we use today. Certainly not going to affect GPS. The government does it all on its own with its testing.
On the other hand, since removing them leaves holes and if the original balancing of control weights included them (I doubt it) removing them now could put balancing at risk. 

 

I tend to agree with you Paul. I have never had static wicks on my plane and can't say any I have seen a problem created by not having them. Even when I had an ADF, I saw more interference by a lightning storm than by precipitation static.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[JohnB]

22 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Personally, I think the need for static wicks died with the ADF and Loran longer wave frequency's. I'd be curious if anyone has actually ever found they really needed them. I doubt it with higher frequency's we use today. Certainly not going to affect GPS. The government does it all on its own with its testing.

On the other hand, since removing them leaves holes and if the original balancing of control weights included them (I doubt it) removing them now could put balancing at risk. 

Hey Paul!!! You made me look this up as that's a good question do we even need wicks? I found this article I thought was interesting.

http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10386443/precipitation-static-combating-noise-and-other-effects

------

Static dischargers work on the principal of creating a relatively easy path for dissipating charges that develop on the aircraft by using a device with fine metal points, carbon coated rods, or carbon wicks. Rather than wait until a large charge is developed and discharged off the trailing edges of the aircraft a static wick when working properly will allow a small but constant stream of electrons to flow to the surrounding air. This process offers various decibels (db) levels of static noise reduction, which can be adapted to different aircraft types to eliminate interference in avionics equipment.

Some common symptoms of excessive precipitation static are:

• Complete loss or weakening of VHF communications
• Erroneous magnetic compass readings
• High pitched squeal on audio
• Static noise in audio
• Loss of all equipment in clouds
• VLF navigation system intermittent
• Erratic instruments
• 'St. Elmo's Fire' on windshield

Aircraft charging will occur as an airplane flies through freezing rain, ice crystals, dust, sand, or snow. Contact with these particles leaves a charge on the airframe and as the aircraft charge builds, a potential is reached where the charge leaks off the aircraft and antennas, generating broadband radio frequency noise. This interferes with ADF, HF, as well as VHF and VOR receivers.

-----

We still use the VHF and VOR antennae which without a static wicks, may become the path of electrons to escape or gather which might be less than desirable going through clouds on an ILS approach. (which is where I think I got my first static wick fried last month) And with all of the new electric gadgets going in planes now adays, an extra 10k-100k++ volts doesn't sound like a good thing for equipment.

 

[kortopates]

12 hours ago, JohnB said:

Hey Paul!!! You made me look this up as that's a good question do we even need wicks? I found this article I thought was interesting.

http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10386443/precipitation-static-combating-noise-and-other-effects

We still use the VHF and VOR antennae which without a static wicks, may become the path of electrons to escape or gather which might be less than desirable going through clouds on an ILS approach. (which is where I think I got my first static wick fried last month) And with all of the new electric gadgets going in planes now adays, an extra 10k-100k++ volts doesn't sound like a good thing for equipment.

 

I am familiar with the rational, it stems from the longer wave RF that was much more susceptible to P-Static. Its also read through the internet for years now the following points that I have seen to evidence to contradict: 

- At the relatively slow airspeeds of our piston GA fleet that we fly, we are pretty much immune to P-Static

- Our modern avionics are much superior at filtering out noise than the old radios

- Mooney doesn't install these as standard but gives an option for owners to install them. But merely bolting/screwing on static wicks on top of the painted control surface has been said to be worthless by supposed static wick experts that say the bond between the wick and the control surface needs to be made against bare metal and in addition to screws/rivets they use a very expensive bonding epoxy. This is why the a proper static wick has removable screw in wicks for replacement. Also important to their effectiveness is the need that all control surfaces are also bonded to the airframe. According to these experts most/many wicks installed on GA aircraft are improperly installed and not doing their job anyway.

- Not that much of the GA fleet has static wicks installed, but when have you ever heard of a pilot flying that had P-Static interference take out their radios? I don't think Mooneyspace has a single instance of a complaint. (I've even seen a lighting strike hole in a Mooney Wing tip that didn't take out the radios - pilot didn't realize till after landing)

- Personally, I think St Elmo's fire is about the only phenomenon we're still exposed too - would wicks matter there? I can't say - never experienced it. But I think the threat of P-Static to our VHF communications and VOR navigation is non-existent just by the sure number of aircraft flying in moisture with out wicks and the lack of complaints. My sense if it ever happens it has to be extremely rare.

I raise the question because I wonder if anyone has experienced any p-static with today's modern avionics without them that was a problem. I think they get installed as insurance. But  am no expert and therefore just asking. 

[M20F]

Somebody smarter than me can explain better but the thinner air as you go higher acts as an insulator not allowing the static to discharge.  It really is only an issue in GA if you fly in the FL's hence why you see them on turbo Mooneys and not others.  

[LANCECASPER]

22 minutes ago, M20F said:

Somebody smarter than me can explain better but the thinner air as you go higher acts as an insulator not allowing the static to discharge.  It really is only an issue in GA if you fly in the FL's hence why you see them on turbo Mooneys and not others.  

Ovations have them and they aren't Turbo.

[M20F]

3 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Ovations have them and they aren't Turbo.

Probably for sex appeal more than anything else.  I can't think of many NA planes with them but I am sure people will point out others.  

[LANCECASPER]

On 6/27/2017 at 1:56 PM, M20F said:

Probably for sex appeal more than anything else.  I can't think of many NA planes with them but I am sure people will point out others.  

Exactly . . lol They look 10 knots faster with static wicks! That was probably when Mooney was on their Personal Airliner ad campaign.

[kortopates]

If you look hard enough you'll find them on C172's ! There everywhere an owner added them. Few manufacturers include them as standard equipment. Mooney doesn't install them on the Acclaim, but you can add them. My K has lots of time in the flight levels and was certified to 28K and Mooney did not install them. It still doesn't have them and its never been an issue or surely they would have been installed when P-Static became an issue. But it hasn't.

Edited June 27, 2017 by kortopates

[bradp]

Don't forget to get your instrument rating if you're gonna go for a personal airliner.